Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Defining Rape Hypothetically

Again I will be taking Anna C's comment on my post "Defining Rape By The Harm Done To The Victim" section by section.


"You are creating a false scenario with a non-existent drug as my position and then trying to disprove that false scenario. I'm beginning to doubt that you are commenting in good faith."

I'm sorry if I have given you that impression. I promise you that I am commenting in good faith. There would be no reason to be just commenting for idle fun/trying to make fun of this issue - I do appreciate that it's a very serious one. It would hardly be the most "fun" thing to do to sit around writing long comments on someone's blog dicussing rape.
There is a clear reason for someone to comment in bad faith. Many people work very hard to reframe the issue of rape and consent in order to excuse the actions of certain rapists when they are unable to deny those rapists' victims experience of rape.

These people have learned that if they come in ranting they are likely to be quickly banned, but if they come in posing as someone with no agenda and a genuine interest in understanding the issues around sexual violence they will be given more slack.

Your last comment was especially entrenched in denying that those who rape the vulnerable are always making conscious decisions and taking conscious actions. Instead you seem determined to turn many rapes into nothing more than an accident. There is no such thing as no-fault rape.


I just have a purely intellectual interest in the whole issue of how consent is defined etc. Perhaps this is the problem - this issue is obviously so filled with emotion for you because of your past experiences whereas I have never been sexually assaulted, and have only known one person who has (and that was an extremely clear-cut case as regards consent, so these issues wouldn't really be relevant to her).
The difference is more than intellectual vs. emotional. My perspective is grounded in reality -- as a survivor and as a trained victims advocate -- and you seem dismissive of the reality of rape -- in order to play so-called intellectual games.

Your framing in the paragraph is intentionally demeaning toward me. I've been raped therefore my insights get dismissed as lacking intellectual merit. What lacks intellectual merit is this statement which is a rehash of numerous statements made against those who have survived rape in order to justify ignoring their experiences and mocking their right to speak about the subject of rape.

In my rape a lack of consent was clear cut unless you buy the excuses rapists give for ignoring lack of consent. It is the multitude of excuses for claiming that the rapist believed there was consent which make these issues directly relevant to the person you know who was sexually assaulted.
It's my abstract interest that leads me to think up scenarios like the one with the non-existent (as yet) drug. That's just how I like to think - when presented with a theory (in this case, "If there is any possibility at all that she is impaired or not freely consenting then proceeding is rape") I find it useful to see how water-tight the theory is - if it holds fast when applied to unusual, hypothetical situations. This is why the Law and Order episode fascinated me - that was a very unlikely scenario (that someone would have sex with someone that they didn't know had been drugged) but which dealt with the kind of questions which would apply in more common situations.
The problem is that an abstract interest, as you put it, can lead people to make bad conclusions based on bad data which gets defended by the speculative nature of the data. When you put bad data into a good theory then your results are meaningless and prove nothing. Defending bad data because it is speculative fails to be intellectual.

Unfortunately, the scenario in Law and Order is not unlikely because of a widespread attitude that deliberately supports exploiting girls incapable of consent. Those who will rape a drunk girl won't care if someone else spiked her drink and raped her. Often knowing that someone else used a girl sexually is the opposite of a deterrent for rape. It is used as a rationalization for not stopping.

As Anonymous said in a comment on my last post:
Ladies, if ya don't want to have sex at a party don't drink so much. Christ, talk about not taking responsibility, "meet me here tomorrow." Really?

This man has the same attitude as that boy in the Law and Order episode. He defends raping the intoxicated by calling it romantic to refuse to wait until genuine consent can be confirmed.
Basically in the Law and Order scenario there were two issues:

1. the fact that she couldn't legally consent because she had been drugged

2. the fact that she was clarly vulnerable and possibly near to alcohol poisoning

You thought that even if point 1 hadn't applied, then point 2 alone would mean that he was guilty of rape. "If the girl hadn't been drugged with GHB and everything else was the same, my opinion of this boy's guilt remains the same." With my hypothetical scenario, I was trying to see whether if point 2 did not apply yet point 1 did you would still consider it rape, and to do this I created the imaginary drug.
Not being able to consent comes from more than having any drug in your system. Someone who takes cholesterol-lowering medicine is on a technical level drugged, but if the drug doesn't impair that person it doesn't nullify the ability to legally consent.

Also in your 2 points you are making the false assumption that her drunkenness and trauma from a previous rape -- or apparent drunkenness -- doesn't impact her ability to consent. It does.

The drugs that are used to facilitate rape -- including alcohol -- are given because they have a clear impact which changes behavior or the ability to think or the ability to remember events clearly or a combination of all three. Any drug which doesn't do any of these 3 won't be used as a date rape drug so creating such a phantom date-rape drug is meaningless.

No matter what substances are or are not in another person, the responsibility for ensuring meaningful consent belongs to the person who wants sex. The ability to give meaningful consent can be nullified even if someone is stone-cold sober. Most non-stranger rapists approach sex by depending on reducing their target's options or waiting until the other person's normal defenses are gone or severely reduced. This is premeditation.
And I'm not alone in finding thought experiements helpful (Judith Jarvis Thomson?) Do you find her "reliance on" a scenario "that doesn't exist except in [her] imagination... troubling" as well? I doubt it, since (from some of your posts on this blog) you seem pro-choice, and so would agree with her. Also, you have no strong emotional reasons (I presume) to be pro-life. This is the opposite of your attitude towards my approach - you are (obviously!) anti-rape and so naturally have an instinctive revulsion towards anything that appears to lessen the guilt of any rapist.
My problems with your approach aren't whether you are thinking of "what if" but whether your "what ifs" are attempts to distort reality in order to find a way to excuse real rapists of their legal responsibility. There is nothing genuinely intellectual in that. That is called rationalization which is used by rapists and their defenders to excuse the deliberate choices made by rapists.

Your search for ways to make the boy in the Law and Order episode not guilty of rape matches that boy's rationalizations for his decisions which clearly resulted in that girl being raped by him.

My revulsion for this isn't instinctive, but rational and practical. This boy had the power to prevent that rape and he decided that he preferred committing rape simply because he could get what he wanted by disregarding the welfare of that girl.

Anyway I hope you understand my intentions - I am quite troubled by the fact that you think I am a trouble-maker or someone who is being flippant about the issue. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my posts - you clearly have put a lot of thought into your answers, and I now understand the position on rape of your brand of feminism better. I take the doubt about my sincerity as an indication that you don't want to continue the discussion - I'm fine with that, I'm just grateful that you found the time to engage in discussion at all.
Your being troubled about my questioning your intentions should be a sign that you are straying into rape denial and rape apology. If that is not your intent, then you need to look at how you are thinking about the issue of rape.

Making my doubt about anything other than your words indicates that you don't understand the reality of rape -- or you do understand but want to reject that reality in favor of your what ifs where many rapists aren't always people who choose to rape.

My position on rape has nothing to do with being loyal to any brand of feminism, it has everything to do about preventing harm and holding those who harm others accountable for their actions.
(And just on one final point. On the issue whether "it's always very risky to judge the seriousness of a crime by its effects" I think it does apply to rape. Imagine two women who are raped in similar situations by the same guy. The first was very fragile emotionally before and the rape competely ruins her life. She ends up killing herself because she can't face life any more. The second, though obviously still traumatised, has a very supportive family etc and manages to cope with the attack, and goes on to lead a happy, succesful life. Now nobody would deny that the effects of the rape were worse in the first case. Yet this does not affect my view on the rapist's culpability. It is his intentions - his wilful disregard of his victim's rights - that condemn him, in my opinion. These were the same for both women so he committed just as great a wrong in the second case even though his actions had a less damaging effect on her life. I'm not "making excuses for allowing many rapists to continue with no punishment", just judging the severity of someone's wrong by a more accurate and less personality and situation-dependent measure than the victim's response.
You are going off-track here from my quoted statement. My statement related to your excusing of rapists from legal responsibility based on your insistence that some rapists -- like the boy in the Law and Order episode -- had no willful disregard of his victim's rights and that the harm he created should not be considered as being meaningful in the eyes of the law. You clearly supported the idea that she was raped, but he's no rapist.

This is another example about why I question your motives.

Even though I wasn't referring to a comparison between the trauma experienced by different rape victims, rapists whose victims commit suicide directly because of the trauma from rape should be charged with manslaughter. This isn't an unknown outcome from rape so the rapist should be held legally responsible for this woman's death.

The man who shoots a liquor store clerk with no intent to kill is going to face additional charges if that clerk dies. According to your logic this is a miscarriage of justice.

You are positioning yourself as more accurate yet you lack accuracy in summing up the law, your own statements and my response to those statements.
I once read about a rape victim who said that her rape had barely affected her life at all. She said that the death of her cat caused her more pain - (obviously cases like this are incredibly, incredibly rare). Using your standard (how bad the rapist's actions were should be judged by how badly she is affected) he wouldn't have done anything that bad, even compared to the person who killed her cat. Whereas using my preferred standard, he would be just as guilty, since the fact that she wan't v. badly affected doens't mean that his intentions and actions weren't despicable in raping her. So I'm not trying to absolve rapists of guilt. Please don't think I am.)
But you were trying to absolve rapists of guilt. In a comment you wrote: I don't think the idea that "she was really raped but he isn't really a rapist" is completely redundant.

You are absolving rapists of guilt by refusing to call all rapists by the label they earned through their choices. Once you've eliminated many rapists then you claim to be treating all rapists equally. That's not a genuine claim.

When you compare the trauma of rape vs. the death of a cat you should have compared rape to someone killing that woman's cat. Killing someone's pet is often an act of deliberate terrorism. Killing or torturing animals is a major danger signal. Yet you seem to be minimize this in order to minimize rape.

There is nothing intellectual about that.

Technorati tags:

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 12:05 PM   12 comments links to this post

12 Comments:

At May 06, 2008 4:39 PM, Anonymous Cara said...

Thank you for yet another great response, Marcella.

I just have a purely intellectual interest in the whole issue of how consent is defined etc. Perhaps this is the problem - this issue is obviously so filled with emotion for you because of your past experiences whereas I have never been sexually assaulted, and have only known one person who has (and that was an extremely clear-cut case as regards consent, so these issues wouldn't really be relevant to her).

This would piss me the fuck off anyway, but seeing the shit that has happened on my blog this week, it makes me want to start breaking things.

To say that Marcella's words come from emotion more than reason is not only demeaning to her and other rape survivors, but is also an irrational statement itself. Marcella is by far the most-informed blogger I have ever read with regards to sexual assault. I like to consider myself pretty well-learned on the subject, but if Marcella disagreed with me, you better believe that I would sit down and give that one some very serious consideration. She understands and can explain the issues in a rational way a lot better than most rape crisis counselors I've met. I think that there probably is some emotion and personal motivation behind her work -- I think that's true of everyone. But that you could read her blog and indicate that her thoughts and arguments come from a place mostly governed by emotion is astonishing to me, and adds me to the list of those very seriously questioning your good faith.

Also, seeing as how depending on who you ask, somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 American women will be raped in her lifetime, I don't really think that anyone can afford to look at sexual assault with a "purely intellectual interest." I can assure you that you certainly have known more than one woman who has been sexually assaulted -- unless you've never known more than, say, 10 women in your life, the probability of that is next to impossible.

You know, if there's a chance that you really are writing in good faith, I highly suggest sitting back, reading, learning and staying quiet for a while. We're all ignorant about issues at one point or another. You'd be much better received if you wait until you know what the hell you're talking about before trying to argue with someone who is highly educated on the subject. Saying that rape survivors can't discuss rape as rationally as those who have never experienced sexual violence? For someone who is not actually trying to piss off survivors, that mistake is covered on the first day of Sexual Assault 101.

And thus concludes my comment/novella.

 
At May 06, 2008 8:49 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

Oh please. A female user name does not automatically mean a female typist. That dude was a creepy rapist wanting to find a way to make what he does acceptable.

No dude. You're creepy. Which is why you have to rape drunk girls.

Men disgust me.

 
At May 07, 2008 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anna C's attempt at placing emotion in opposition to reason is illogical and irrational. In fact emotion is a basis of reason. People whose emotional centers of the brain are damaged are not able to function rationally in society, make decisions, or complete tasks satisfactorily.

-Kali

 
At May 07, 2008 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anne said...

m andrea, you said exactly what I was thinking. As I've read this whole exchange I've wondered why a female was so intent on excusing men from raping and twisting situations to make rape a perpetraitorless crime and a "not-so-bad" crime for women.
The moment "she" wrote the above quote about being interested in rape "from a purely intellectual standpoint" my mind immediately said "male" because I have only ever heard males say that.

Women don't need to "be interested in rape" because they live it every freakin' day of their lives. Even the anti-feminist women who wholeheartedly buy into rape myths don't say crap like this person has because deep down they know the truth.

And to the troll:
You will NEVER know more about rape than someone who's gone through it. Ever. Especially when that person dedicates their life to helping other rape survivors and heavily researching it. You have YEARS of catching up to do and that still wouldn't make you as knowledgeable. I know you don't care, but it's sexist (and completely untrue) to believe women's experiences cloud their judgement while men's experiences enhance their knowledge.

 
At May 07, 2008 2:20 PM, Anonymous Anna C said...

"I highly suggest sitting back, reading, learning and staying quiet for a while. We're all ignorant about issues at one point or another. You'd be much better received if you wait until you know what the hell you're talking about before trying to argue with someone who is highly educated on the subject. Saying that rape survivors can't discuss rape as rationally as those who have never experienced sexual violence?"

I'm sorry for causing any offence. I really didn't mean to be disrespectful, and I certainly don't think I know more about rape than the writer of this blog - that would be ridiculous. I don't think I'm right the whole time - far from it. After I watching the Law and Order episode, I was genuinely unsure as to whether the second guy was legally responsible for the girl's second rape (note: I never said that she wan't raped, or that no-one should be held repsonsible for it - I just wasn't sure if it should be the second guy or the first (who drugged her and so took away her capacity to consent).

And I have been "sitting back, reading, learning and staying quiet for a while". I've been reading this blog for more than a year now and my views have been affected by it.

"You will NEVER know more about rape than someone who's gone through it. Ever. Especially when that person dedicates their life to helping other rape survivors and heavily researching it. You have YEARS of catching up to do and that still wouldn't make you as knowledgeable. I know you don't care, but it's sexist (and completely untrue) to believe women's experiences cloud their judgement while men's experiences enhance their knowledge."

Again, I don't pretend to know even a fraction of the amount that a lot of you guys do, for obvious reasons. I'm genuinely sorry if I came across as arrogant. I really didn't mean to be.

And what makes you think that I "don't care" about sexist assumptions? Just because I haven't come to the point where I agree with everything written on this blog doesn't mean I don't care about men being thought to be superior.

"a "not-so-bad" crime for women"

When did I ever imply that I thought that? The girl I knew who was abused was completely messed up by it. I really do think it's an incredibly serious crime - it sickens me how in the UK sentences for rape are ridiculously low (one guy who raped a 4 yr old I think became eligible for parole after 4yrs in prison for "good behaviour").

"Women don't need to "be interested in rape" because they live it every freakin' day of their lives."

Well, I suppose this is true for the people who have to live with the memory of their attack, but for most women I think that this is a bit of an exaggeration - maybe it's my background but nobody that I know lives with the constant fear of being attacked. I certainly don't. Sure, sometimes I feel a bit worried if I'm walking home alone (even though I know I'm more likely to be raped by someone I know) but it hardly affects my life much.

"That dude was a creepy rapist wanting to find a way to make what he does acceptable.

No dude. You're creepy. Which is why you have to rape drunk girls."

"I have only ever heard males say that"

Please. This is a tad ridiculous. I am a girl...but I don't really know how I can prove it! And I'm not really into partying and stuff so the notion that I am a "rapist" who rapes "drunk girls" is silly. I'm sorry if I have given the impression that I am that kind of person though.

And why does it mean that I'm male just because I don't personally fear being raped (statistically it's not very likely, especially as I don't really go to parties etc so am not very likely to be taken advantage of when drunk or drugged) and don't have any particularly close friends who have been raped, so don't really have much emotional investment in the subject, doesn't mean that I'm a MAN! Not all women are quaking in their boots at every moment.


And finally, addressing the post:

"Your framing in the paragraph is intentionally demeaning toward me. I've been raped therefore my insights get dismissed as lacking intellectual merit."

I'm sorry. I really didn't mean it that way. I'm sometimes not very good at accurately expressing what I mean. I fully accept that your authority on the matter is much, much greater than mine, and that you are probably right on the vast majority of these sorts of issues. What I meant to say is that it is near-inevitable that we are going to have different views on the subject, considering our very different life experiences. This is the same in every area of life - the mother of a murder victim is unlikely to have the same view on sentences for murder as a bog-standard person, for example. It does not mean that the mother's view is any less valid or intellectual than the other person's. I freely admit that your positions are much more thought-out, and yes, "intellectual" than mine. It's just that your positions have been formed by emotion (which is often a reliable guide) + intellectual reasons, whereas I have very little emotion. Perhaps this is wrong; perhaps I should have strong emotions considering that so many women (and men) have their lives wrecked by rape. Hopefully I'll become more sensitive in the future.

"Your being troubled about my questioning your intentions should be a sign that you are straying into rape denial and rape apology."

Why? I do find it troubling that several people now think I am a "creepy" rapist (or at least a man) because of my attitude towards the subject. Out of all of my female friends, I have the strictest attitude about what meaningful consent is - that doesn't mean that they're all men! I don't like it when people think I'm a horrible person or misinterpret what I'm trying to say. That doesn't mean I'm trying to deny rape.

"many rapists aren't always people who choose to rape"

I never said this. As you pointed out, the hypothetical I suggested couldn't even exist at the moment. I'm not even sure that there are any rapists who rape "accidentally" - I haven't made my mind up completely on many issues. I was just trying to explore the issue to see if it were possible for that kind of situation to arise.

To sum up: I'm sorry for any offence I've caused. Much of it was unintentional and due to poor phrasing. I am a woman, and not a male rapist. And I do care about the issue of rape, though do not live my life being constantly worried about it. And I'm really not a troll - I am interested in the issue, and willing to change my views - it's just that it helps me too formulate my views if I take a position (like the one I have in my last few comments) and try to argue it - this helps to illuminate its weaknesses.

Just one final point: in my second comment I said this –

“By the way, don't think I'm on his side - I suppose I'm paying devil's advocate here slightly - just trying to work out what I think about the situation.”

 
At May 07, 2008 3:42 PM, Blogger sophie said...

As you pointed out, the hypothetical I suggested couldn't even exist at the moment.

The hypothetical exists - let's be clear on that. (Note - I don't know what specific drugs and doses work on humans, who don't have oestrus cycles, but I certainly know the doses to manipulate another animal into 'receptivity').

But more than that - the discussion of rape encompasses a much wider range of factors influencing the behaviour of both male and female. There are many reasons why a woman who is not capable of meaningful consent may appear to consent - which is why the onus is on the male to *not* take advantage. Don't lie for sex. Don't pay for sex. Don't manipulate a women into agreeing to sex. Take *every* precaution feasible to check that your would-be partner is mature, willing and of sound mind.

Men do have to live with that fact that if a child looks eighteen, but is underage, they are rapists if they have sex with her. If a young woman who is mentally or emotionally unsound propositions them and they have sex with her - they are rapists.
Is it so hard, as a male, to accept that reality and take the precautions necessary to not rape?

 
At May 08, 2008 2:08 AM, Blogger Amy said...

Whoa. Back the apologist truck up for a moment.

"Not all women are quaking in their boots at every moment."

Excuse me...quaking in their boots? Could you try to be more demeaning, because I don't think you've hit a perfect 10 quite yet.

I am not quaking.

I am pissed off because a sizable portion of men see me as a non-person to rub off against.

I am pissed off because I can't get stupid drunk or wear anything I'd like.

I am pissed off that I can't go certain places alone.

I am pissed off that the most dangerous thing I can do is spend time alone with any male of the species.

I'm not quaking. I'm mad as fucking hell that I have to live with a significant chance of being raped every day of my life.

 
At May 08, 2008 8:32 AM, Anonymous Anna C said...

amy, I looked at your blog:

"And I resent the implication that concern about the rape epidemic implies "quaking in your boots."

My "quaking in your boots comment" was responding to the assertation that women "live [rape] every freakin' day of their lives", not legitimate "concern" about rape.

In the UK, where I live, a government report (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf, if you're interested) said that 4.9% of adult women had been raped since the age of 16.

I'd hardly say that's "Statistically...likely as hell". I think it's overstating it a bit to say that the 19/20 British women who have never been raped "live" in fear of it every day - most people I know barely change their lifestyle because of it. Maybe it's different in America - maybe you do have a legitimate reason to fear attack - I don't know very much about rape statistics in America - but in England that level of fear is not common at all.

"I can't get stupid drunk or wear anything I'd like" Again, if this is the situation in America, I wouldn't like to live there. Here, the fear of rape doen't stop women from doing this kind of stuff. I don't personally (I don't like the taste of alcohol) but the vast majority of my friends "get stupid drunk" semi-regularly. The only thing that stops them wearing very revealing clothes is the fact that they don't want to look "slutty" (their word, not mine), not that they're afraid of being raped.

"I am pissed off that I can't go certain places alone" - that's not restricted to women. There are many areas of London where it would be dangerous for anyone, male or female, to go alone, especially at night.

To be honest, I'm surprised at the reaction to my comments. I really didn't think I would be this offensive/enraging. Don't you hear people saying this kind of stuff in every discussion about rape? I certainly am very pro-woman compared to some of my female friends, who think that if a woman is flirty she's "asking for it" etc. And I am female.

 
At May 08, 2008 9:28 AM, Anonymous Cara said...

Don't you hear people saying this kind of stuff in every discussion about rape?

Absolutely. And we take extreme offense to their comments just as we are doing right now. You are in absolutely no way being singled out right now. I'm sorry that your friends have such disturbing -- though hardly uncommon -- views towards rape. That doesn't make your somewhat less disturbing views okay, as you seem to be suggesting.

 
At May 08, 2008 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anna C said...

By saying "Don't you hear people saying this kind of stuff in every discussion about rape?" I wasn't meaning to prove that the argument I put forth was "okay" - I was just surprised that the attack against me was so forceful (for example, the statement by m andrea saying "That dude was a creepy rapist"), considering that wrong views on rape are so common.

Just because someone holds dodgy views doesn't make them a "creepy rapist".

It was that sort of attack (and the disbelief at the fact that I am female, because so many women hold these sorts of views) that I am genuinely surprised about, not so much the statement that I was "demeaning". I admit that I probably came across that way, though I didn't mean to - I'm not very good at expressing myself sometimes.

"your somewhat less disturbing views"

Keep in mind the fact that not all the views I put forward were my own - I haven't made up my mind on this subject yet, and as I posted earlier "it helps me too formulate my views if I take a position (like the one I have in my last few comments) and try to argue it - this helps to illuminate its weaknesses".

 
At May 09, 2008 8:58 AM, Anonymous adriana said...

Anna C, I want to tell you a personal story. It may or may not help you understand the disconnect here and why people are so loathe to give any man an "out" when it comes to responsibility for rape. By virtue of the society we live in, many men already have an out - society usually favors their side of the story no matter how flimsy because we hate to believe it could really happen to us.

I have been raped twice in my life. The first time was by a long time boyfriend I was breaking up with. We were having the breaking up discussion and he asked if we could go somewhere more private to discuss it. Thinking little of it, I agreed and got in the car with him. He drove me to the woods, talking reasonably, and when we got there he hit me and raped me. No charges were filed....why? Because he was my boyfriend and the police explained to me while I sat there bruised and humiliated that since he was my boyfriend and we had been intimate before that I had no case.

A few years later, I was raped again. I was sleeping in my own house when someone broke in and held me face-down on the bed and raped me, nearly suffocating me as well. I passed out from lack of oxygen during the rape. Again - the police did nothing. This time because I didn't *see* the rapist and couldn't give a description, they said there was no case and no way to find him. To add insult to injury, they made it sounds as though I was filing a false report because I had already been raped before - as though I had already filled my quota and couldn't be telling the truth. This made every male I saw frightening to me. Every male I saw could have been him. It made every policeman someone to worry about because there was no one to help.

This is why some women are frightened of rape on a daily basis. I have experienced both stranger rape and so-called date rape. Both were rape. Both hurt me. Both left me with fear, humiliation, pain, and mistrust.

The idea that a man may try to use the "but I didn't know she wasn't able to consent" excuse is not something abstract to me. I have heard my own male friends say things like this (and when they have they instantly stop being my friends and become people who could rape to me).

For may of us, rape is not an abstract construct - it is something that we have been forced to grapple with as a daily reality. Please understand that you have been incredibly fortunate thus far in your life and I truly hope that you never have firsthand experience of any of this. I would not wish this experience on anyone, not even the men who raped me.

 
At May 09, 2008 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anna C said...

Thank you very much for sharing your story - I can't imagine how awful it must have been.

Thank you as well for not judging me too harshly.

I do understand better now why many react so strongly to any suggestion which appears to shift the blame away from rapists.

I know I have been lucky to have such a trouble-free (as yet) life, especially compared to many of you guys.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home